witnesses should be able to react, they get paid $50k a week to do this.

i will not support 5% force settle offset when its a simple case of witnesses not providing the correct feed.

Price feeds from witnesses, and the parameters of the bitAssets, are two factors of the issue, or say, they're two different "tools" that can be used to "macro-control" the system, just like how the governments and/or central banks are affecting the economy. I'm not sure if I used the correct words here, but wish you can understand.

Anyway, stake holders have the final say, they vote on witnesses and committee members.

As a stake holder, I don't have a clear opinion on the issue so far.

As a witness, my own price feeds are usually on the opposite side recently since my price sources are a bit different.

No, margin call does not keep the peg, forced settlement does (only from one side though).

Quote

we can watch how bitCNY behaves after this change, if some unexpected event happen, for example, bitCNY price drop to 0.95CNY

This is exactly what is expected and for sure will happen. When the price of bitAsset drops below the peg, you need to settle more, not less to keep the peg. With 5% offset bitCNY holders will not be able to sell it, and will not be able to settle it at fair price. If you want, go ahead, try it, but give us some time before this to get rid of bitCNY.

For me, the settlement is the crucial part that ensures a lower bound on the price of bitassets.Margin calls ensure that shorts provide sufficient collateral or are liquidated.

To me, bitassets work as intended:If people sell their bitCNY below the price feed, others should buy them up and settle them to make a profit, this strengthens the pegThis of course assumes a fair price feed.

Problems arise if people can obtain bitCNY for "cheaper" than they are expected to, then they can get into BTS for cheaper than buying BTS directly - at the cost of the shorter.

If I was short on bitCNY, i would make sure there are no bitCNY sell orders below the peg - and if there were, I would buy them up to either increase my collateral ratio or reduce my debt.

If I was short on bitCNY, i would make sure there are no bitCNY sell orders below the peg - and if there were, I would buy them up to either increase my collateral ratio or reduce my debt.

according to your logic, now I should sell BTS in DEX to lower the price as feeded?

the problem is:1. after I doing this, I have no way to buy BTS back at the feeded price, I am at risk if the BTS price goes up.2. as a big shorter it's not easy to avoid being settlement by reducing debt, even I avoid, some other shorters will be settled, as committee we need to find a solution to make sure any shorters won't be settled unfairly!

If I was short on bitCNY, i would make sure there are no bitCNY sell orders below the peg - and if there were, I would buy them up to either increase my collateral ratio or reduce my debt.

according to your logic, now I should sell BTS in DEX to lower the price as feeded?

the problem is:1. after I doing this, I have no way to buy BTS back at the feeded price, I am at risk if the BTS price goes up.2. as a big shorter it's not easy to avoid being settlement by reducing debt, even I avoid, some other shorters will be settled, as committee we need to find a solution to make sure any shorters won't be settled unfairly!

What are you talking about? You are settled at a fair face value. Besides, you can take advantage of low bitCNY price and close your position at discount value before you are forced settled. When bitCNY price goes up again, just short it again, it takes a couple of clicks. Where is unfairness?

If I was short on bitCNY, i would make sure there are no bitCNY sell orders below the peg - and if there were, I would buy them up to either increase my collateral ratio or reduce my debt.

according to your logic, now I should sell BTS in DEX to lower the price as feeded?

the problem is:1. after I doing this, I have no way to buy BTS back at the feeded price, I am at risk if the BTS price goes up.2. as a big shorter it's not easy to avoid being settlement by reducing debt, even I avoid, some other shorters will be settled, as committee we need to find a solution to make sure any shorters won't be settled unfairly!

What are you talking about? You are settled at a fair face value. Besides, you can take advantage of low bitCNY price and close your position at discount value before you are forced settled. When bitCNY price goes up again, just short it again, it takes a couple of clicks. Where is unfairness?

if the feed price is correct, then there's no unfairness.but now there's no way to buy BTS price at the feed price, otherwise the settlers will buy at feed price, not feed price %, understand?

listen, there is no low or high bitCNY price, bitCNY price are stable, there's only high or low BTS price, if I want to close my position, I need to sell 60M BTS, may be you want that, but I don't think the ecosystem like this.

I am considering how to make the ecosystem grow by optimizing the rules but what are you thinking? you guys can only tell others "stay calm, no problem, no need to change"

The importance of force settlement is over rated. For an adopted market you could likely change it to 50% offset or remove it entirely and it would have no effect.

Force settlement is not a tool for speculators. It is not a tool for balancing or arbitrage. It is a safety, training wheels mechanism for if the market disappears, SmartAsset holders are assured of some value. Has the market disappeared? Is there suddenly a void on one side of the market and an overwhelming driving force on the other? Is everyone trying to exit the market at once? Is bitCNY in danger of collapse? No? ok, then why are we using force settlement? A market disruption and volatile pricing for BTS and BTC has made accurate objective feeding difficult/impossible. And instead of letting the markets and pricing to rebalance through normal trade we've given a new path straight through our core support.

A hard line in the sand so close to the feed during times of high volatility and market disruption drives speculators to attack the backbone supply for the market (borrowers) instead of an honest trade with other speculators in a normal market.

The price should be given some breathing room around the feed. Where normal market swings will be picked up from 1 speculator to the other. Not allowing speculators and other normal trading to pick up the slack first to balance and correct, where instead there is a governing fail-safe emergency mechanism for a guaranteed price, drives instead a drain on the core of the market (borrowers)

While I see settlement as useful in the formation of a new market, at some point it becomes destructive and an unnecessary burden for the creators / borrowers. This balance should be managed and assessed. Is bCNY able to stand on it's own? Can we allow it 5% around the feed without it falling over?

listen, there is no low or high bitCNY price, bitCNY price are stable, there's only high or low BTS price,

Wrong! It is bitCNY price which we want to peg to CNY, not BTS.

Quote

if I want to close my position, I need to sell 60M BTS, may be you want that, but I don't think the ecosystem like this.

I am considering how to make the ecosystem grow by optimizing the rules but what are you thinking? you guys can only tell others "stay calm, no problem, no need to change"

If you care so much about ecosystem, why don't you stop shorting assets which are oversupplied and go ahead and short those which desperately need more supply? Oversupply of money is as bad as undersupply.

The importance of force settlement is over rated. For an adopted market you could likely change it to 50% offset or remove it entirely and it would have no effect.

Force settlement is not a tool for speculators. It is not a tool for balancing or arbitrage. It is a safety, training wheels mechanism for if the market disappears, SmartAsset holders are assured of some value. Has the market disappeared? Is there suddenly a void on one side of the market and an overwhelming driving force on the other? Is everyone trying to exit the market at once? Is bitCNY in danger of collapse? No? ok, then why are we using force settlement? A market disruption and volatile pricing for BTS and BTC has made accurate objective feeding difficult/impossible. And instead of letting the markets and pricing to rebalance through normal trade we've given a new path straight through our core support.

A hard line in the sand so close to the feed during times of high volatility and market disruption drives speculators to attack the backbone supply for the market (borrowers) instead of an honest trade with other speculators in a normal market.

The price should be given some breathing room around the feed. Where normal market swings will be picked up from 1 speculator to the other. Not allowing speculators and other normal trading to pick up the slack first to balance and correct, where instead there is a governing fail-safe emergency mechanism for a guaranteed price, drives instead a drain on the core of the market (borrowers)

While I see settlement as useful in the formation of a new market, at some point it becomes destructive and an unnecessary burden for the creators / borrowers. This balance should be managed and assessed. Is bCNY able to stand on it's own? Can we allow it 5% around the feed without it falling over?

HELLO THERE! BitCNY is falling below the feed because it is OVER SUPPLIED. This is very simple: there are more sellers than buyers. Forced settlement is the ONLY thing which keeps it from falling further. You want it to fall 50% below? Great, go ahead and set 50% offset and keep shorting, but let me know in advance when this happen such that I have time to get rid of this shit asset.

The price of BTS has been in place for two days already. Why, then, is the average median price of the witnesses not between the purchase and sale price? Perhaps there is an error in the submission of quotations from the witnesses?

And when the market moves down, the redemption price should be in the red zone, one it is still in green, maybe there is an external reason is that the settlement price is so understated?

Another question that we must ask ourselves is what do we want?

If we want more supply of the bitCNY, then we need to increase the remuneration to borrowers to a size greater than 1% when settlement, but why is it necessary to immediately 5%? If we talk about the regulation of the economy by central banks of different countries or the FED, they make soft decisions, you can make a reward of 1.5% or 2%. This will reduce interest from speculators and settlement will decrease.

The importance of force settlement is over rated. For an adopted market you could likely change it to 50% offset or remove it entirely and it would have no effect.

Force settlement is not a tool for speculators. It is not a tool for balancing or arbitrage. It is a safety, training wheels mechanism for if the market disappears, SmartAsset holders are assured of some value. Has the market disappeared? Is there suddenly a void on one side of the market and an overwhelming driving force on the other? Is everyone trying to exit the market at once? Is bitCNY in danger of collapse? No? ok, then why are we using force settlement? A market disruption and volatile pricing for BTS and BTC has made accurate objective feeding difficult/impossible. And instead of letting the markets and pricing to rebalance through normal trade we've given a new path straight through our core support.

A hard line in the sand so close to the feed during times of high volatility and market disruption drives speculators to attack the backbone supply for the market (borrowers) instead of an honest trade with other speculators in a normal market.

The price should be given some breathing room around the feed. Where normal market swings will be picked up from 1 speculator to the other. Not allowing speculators and other normal trading to pick up the slack first to balance and correct, where instead there is a governing fail-safe emergency mechanism for a guaranteed price, drives instead a drain on the core of the market (borrowers)

While I see settlement as useful in the formation of a new market, at some point it becomes destructive and an unnecessary burden for the creators / borrowers. This balance should be managed and assessed. Is bCNY able to stand on it's own? Can we allow it 5% around the feed without it falling over?

HELLO THERE! BitCNY is falling below the feed because it is OVER SUPPLIED. This is very simple: there are more sellers than buyers. Forced settlement is the ONLY thing which keeps it from falling further. You want it to fall 50% below? Great, go ahead and set 50% offset and keep shorting, but let me know in advance when this happen such that I have time to get rid of this shit asset.

ok, let's firstly focus on whether the bitCNY is over supplied.

below is snapshot from magicwallet, we can see that currently one need to pay at least 1.028CNY to get 1bitCNY, it is clearly that bitCNY is in shortage, serious shortage.

anyway if you do not like bitCNY even if it worth more than 1CNY, just sell it immediatelly, it is very possible that the offset will increase 3 days later.

below is snapshot from magicwallet, we can see that currently one need to pay at least 1.028CNY to get 1bitCNY, it is clearly that bitCNY is in shortage, serious shortage.

It is in shortage in magicwallet, not on DEX. On DEX it is worth less than 1 CNY, which clearly indicates oversupply, and increasing supply even more will not make more bitCNY available in magicwallet, this will drop the price on DEX even more.

Quote

anyway if you do not like bitCNY even if it worth more than 1CNY, just sell it immediatelly, it is very possible that the offset will increase 3 days later.

It worth less than 1 CNY for me, not more, because I don't trade in magicwallet. But don't worry, I'll get rid of it, if it is going to be worth even less.